Federal Register / Vol. 67, No.
91 / Friday, May 10, 2002 / Notices
Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s
proposal is to use a cordless drill or
other equivalent drills to install
surveying spads in the mine roof to
minimize the potential of developing
cumulative trauma disorders in the
wrists, elbows, and shoulder of the
surveyors. The petitioner propose to test
for methane before using the drills and
if one percent or more of methane is
found, drilling will not begin and will
be immediately stopped if a level of or
greater than one percent methane is
found. This is considered an acceptable
alternative method for the Westvaco
Mine. MSHA grants the petition for
modification for the use Westvaco Mine
with conditions.
Docket No.: M–2000–010–M.
FR Notice: 66 FR 9724.
Petitioner: ASARCO Incorporated.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
57.11055.
Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s
proposal is to use a vertical ladderway
as an emergency escapeway, and as a
secondary means of escape within the
primary escapeway in the event of an
extended power failure or repair to a
damage hoist, to avoid hazards that are
created by repeated unnecessary mine
evacuations. This is considered an
acceptable alternative method for the
Coy Mine. MSHA grants the petition for
modification for the Coy Mine during
unplanned hoist outages to allow the
Coy shaft ladderway to be designated as
an escapeway 337 feet only when the
Coy shaft hoist is incapacitated for
unplanned reasons with conditions.
[FR Doc. 02–11727 Filed 5–9–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
The following parties have filed
petitions to modify the application of
existing safety standards under section
101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977.
1. Consol of Pennsylvania Coal
Company
[Docket No. M–2002–039–C]
Consol of Pennsylvania Coal
Company, Consol Plaza, 1800
Washington Road, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15241–1421 has filed a
petition to modify the application of 30
CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face
equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR
18.35 (Portable trailing cables and
cords) to its Enlow Fork Mine (I.D. No.
46–07416) located in Greene County,
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:13 May 09, 2002 Jkt 197001
31835
Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a
modification of the existing standard to
increase the maximum length of trailing
cables supplying power to continuous
mining machines be 950 feet. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method would provide at
least the same measure of protection as
the existing standard.
2. Cook & Sons Mining, Inc.
[Docket No. M–2002–040-C]
Cook & Sons Mining, Inc., 147 Big
Blue Boulevard, Whitesburg, Kentucky
41858 has filed a petition to modify the
application of 30 CFR 75.503
(Permissible electric face equipment;
maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug
and receptacle-type connectors) to its
Spring Branch #2 Mine, (I.D. No. 15–
18287), UZ Deep Mine, (I.D. No. 15–
18469), and Nu Enterprise Mine (I.D.
No. 15–17481) all located in Letcher
County, Kentucky. The petitioner
proposes to use a permanently installed
spring-loaded locking device to secure
battery plugs on mobile battery-powered
machines instead of a padlock to
prevent unintentional loosening of the
battery plugs from battery receptacles,
and to eliminate the potential hazards
associated with difficult removal of
padlocks during emergency situations.
The petitioner asserts that application of
the existing standard would result in a
diminution of safety to the miners and
that the proposed alternative method
would provide at least the same
measure of protection as the existing
standard.
3. Independence Coal Company, Inc.
[Docket No. M–2002–041–C]
Independence Coal Company, Inc.,
HC 78 Box 1800, Madison, West
Virginia 25130 has filed a petition to
modify the application of 30 CFR
75.1002 (Location of trolley wires,
trolley feeder wires, high-voltage cables
and transformers) to its White Oak Mine
(I.D. No. 46–08933), WVOMSHT Permit
U–5021–91, located in Boone County,
West Virginia. The petitioner proposes
to transfer 2,400 volt high-voltage
equipment from one mine to another
mine within the company. The
petitioner asserts that the proposed
alternative method would provide at
least the same measure of protection as
the existing standard.
4. General Chemical (Soda Ash)
Partners (GCSAP)
[Docket No. M–2002–003–M)
General Chemical (Soda Ash) Partners
(GCSAP) has filed a petition to modify
the application of 30 CFR 57.22305
(Approved equipment (III mines)) to its
PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
General Chemical Mine (I.D. No. 48–
00155) located in Sweetwater County,
Wyoming. The petitioner requests a
modification of the existing standard to
permit the use of the following non-
permissible equipment in or beyond the
last open crosscut: (i) A Leica Total
Station Model No. TCR307 (6 volt
battery), and (ii) a Milwaukee 14.4 Volt
1⁄2″ Hammer Drill Model No. 0514–20,
or equivalent. The petitioner asserts that
the proposed alternative method would
provide at least the same measure of
protection as the existing standard.
Request for Comments
Persons interested in these petitions
are encouraged to submit comments via
e-mail to ‘‘comments@msha.gov,’’ or on
a computer disk along with an original
hard copy to the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, Mine Safety
and Health Administration, 4015
Wilson Boulevard, Room 627,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. All
comments must be postmarked or
received in that office on or before June
10, 2002. Copies of these petitions are
available for inspection at that address.
Dated at Arlington, Virginia this 6th day of
May 2002.
Marvin W. Nichols, Jr.,
Director, Office of Standards, Regulations,
and Variances.
[FR Doc. 02–11726 Filed 5–9–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration
[Application Number D–10786]
Proposed Amendment to Prohibited
Transaction Exemption 92–6 (PTE 92–
6) Involving the Transfer of Individual
Life Insurance Contracts and Annuities
From Employee Benefit Plans to Plan
Participants, Certain Beneficiaries of
Plan Participants, Personal Trusts,
Employers and Other Employee
Benefit Plans
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed amendment
to PTE 92–6.
SUMMARY: This document contains a
notice of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of
a proposed amendment to PTE 92–6.
PTE 92–6 is a class exemption that
enables an employee benefit plan to sell
individual life insurance contracts and
annuities to: (1) A plan participant
insured under such policies; (2) a
relative of such insured participant who
E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 10MYN1
 31836 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2002 / Notices
is the beneficiary under the contract; (3)
an employer any of whose employees
are covered by the plan; or (4) another
employee benefit plan, for the cash
surrender value of the contract,
provided certain conditions are met.
The proposed amendment, if adopted,
would affect, among others, certain
participants, beneficiaries and
fiduciaries of plans engaged in the
described transactions.
DATES: If adopted, the proposed
amendment would be effective February
12, 1992. Written comments and
requests for a public hearing should be
received by the Department on or before
June 24, 2002.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and
requests for a public hearing (preferably
three copies) should be addressed to the
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
Exemption Determinations, Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration, Room
N–5649, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, (attention: PTE
92–6 Amendment). Interested persons
are also invited to submit comments
and/or hearing requests to PWBA via e-
mail or FAX. Any such comments or
requests should be sent either by e-mail
to: ‘‘moffittb@pwba.dol.gov’’ or by FAX
to (202)219–0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The
application pertaining to the exemptive
relief proposed herein (Application No.
D–10786) and the comments received
will be available for public inspection in
the public Documents Room of the
Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–1513, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Gary H. Lefkowitz, Office of Exemption
Determinations, Pension and Welfare
Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, (202)693–8540.
(This is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given of the pendency before the
Department of a proposed amendment
to PTE 92–6 (57 FR 5189, February 12,
1992), which amended Prohibited
Transaction Exemption 77–8 (PTE 77–8)
(42 FR 31574, June 21, 1977). PTE 92–
6 provides an exemption from the
restrictions of section 406(a) and
406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA or the Act) and from the taxes
imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code), by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)
through (E) of the Code.
The amendment to PTE 92–6
proposed herein was requested in an
exemption application filed by the
Chicago, Illinois law firm of
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:13 May 09, 2002 Jkt 197001
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal on
behalf of the General American Life
Group (the Applicant). The Department
is proposing the amendment pursuant to
section 408(a) of ERISA and section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55
FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).1
A. General Background
The prohibited transaction provisions
of the Act generally prohibit various
transactions between plans covered by
Title I of ERISA and certain related
parties with respect to such plans.
Specifically, section 406(a)(1)(A) and
(D) of the Act states that a fiduciary with
respect to a plan shall not cause the
plan to engage in a transaction, if he
knows or should know that such
transaction constitutes a direct or
indirect—
(A) sale or exchange, or leasing, of any
property between the plan and a party
in interest; or
(D) transfer to, or use by or for the
benefit of, a party in interest of any
assets of the plan.
Accordingly, unless a statutory or
administrative exemption is applicable,
the sale of a life insurance contract, or
annuity contract, by a plan to a party in
interest is prohibited.
B. Description of Existing Relief
Section I of PTE 92–6 permits the sale
of an individual life insurance or
annuity contract by an employee benefit
plan to: (1) A plan participant; (2) a
relative of such insured participant who
is the beneficiary under the contract; (3)
an employer any of whose employees
are covered by the plan; or (4) another
employee benefit plan, if: (a) Such
participant is the insured under the
contract; (b) such relative is a ‘‘relative’’
as defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or
a ‘‘member of the family’’ as defined in
section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or is a
brother or sister of the insured (or a
spouse of such brother or sister), and the
beneficiary under the contract; (c) the
contract would, but for the sale, be
surrendered by the plan; (d) with
respect to sales of the policy to the
employer, a relative of the insured or
another plan, the participant insured
under the policy is first informed of the
proposed sale and is given the
opportunity to purchase such contract
from the plan, and delivers a written
document to the plan stating that he or
she elects not to purchase the policy
1 Section 102 of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 1 [1996]) generally transferred
the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue administrative exemptions under section 4975
of the Code to the Secretary of Labor.
PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
and consents to the sale by the plan of
such policy to such employer, relative
or other plan; (e) the amount received
by the plan as consideration for the sale
is at least equal to the amount necessary
to put the plan in the same cash
position as it would have been had it
retained the contract, surrendered it,
and made any distribution owing to the
participant on his vested interest under
the plan; and (f) with regard to any plan
which is an employee welfare benefit
plan, such plan must not, with respect
to such sale, discriminate in form or in
operation in favor of plan participants
who are officers, shareholders or highly
compensated employees.
Section II of PTE 92–6 amended PTE
77–8 to provide that the relief for
transactions described in part I would
be available, effective October 22, 1986,
for plan participants who are owner-
employees (as defined in section
401(c)(3) of the Code) or shareholder-
employees (as defined in section 1379 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in
effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the Subchapter S Revision
Act of 1982), if the conditions set forth
in part I are met.
C. Discussion of the Proposed
Amendment
The Department, at the request of the
Applicant, proposes to amend PTE 92–
6 in order to expand the coverage of the
exemption to include the sale by an
employee benefit plan (the Plan) of an
individual life insurance or annuity
contract to a personal or private trust
(the Trust) established by or for the
benefit of an individual who is a
participant in the Plan and the insured
under the policy, or by or for the benefit
of one or more relatives (as defined in
section I(2) of PTE 92–6) of the
participant. 2
The Applicant notes that many Plans
provide pre-retirement death benefit
protection that is funded in whole or in
part by the purchase of individual
whole life and universal life insurance
policies on the lives of the Plan’s
2 Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a direct
or indirect sale or exchange of any property
between a Plan and a party in interest. Section
406(a)(1)(D) of the Act prohibits a transfer to, or use
by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any
assets of the Plan. In most cases, the participant will
be a party in interest with respect to the Plan under
section 3(14)(H) of the Act, as an employee of an
employer any of whose employees are covered by
the Plan. In some cases, the participant or relative
will also be a party in interest under section
3(14)(A) or (E) as a fiduciary of the Plan, or as an
owner of 50% or more of the employer maintaining
the Plan. The Trust would be a party in interest
under section 3(14)(G) of the Act if 50% or more
of the beneficial interest of such Trust is owned or
held by persons described in section 3(14)(A) or (E)
of the Act.
pfrm01 PsN: 10MYN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2002 / Notices
participants. This is particularly true for
Plans of small employers offering a pre-
retirement death benefit, which do not
have a sufficient number of participants
to incur the actuarial risk of premature
death of one or more participants in the
absence of insurance. In addition, the
cash value element of life insurance
creates a funding vehicle for post-
retirement pension benefits. The
Internal Revenue Service has
historically permitted Plans to invest in
whole life insurance and universal life
insurance by establishing specific
standards for the provision of incidental
death benefits funded by whole and
universal life insurance.3
In conformity with these tax
standards for insurance in Plans, pre-
retirement death benefit protection
under a Plan typically ceases upon the
retirement of a covered participant. At
that time, the Plan will need to obtain
the policy’s cash value to support post-
retirement pension benefits, either by
converting the policy’s cash value to an
annuity payment from the issuer of the
policy, or realizing such cash value
through a surrender of the policy to the
issuer, or by a sale of the policy for an
amount at least equal to the cash
surrender value. Insured death benefit
protection supported by policies may
also cease before retirement when a
participant terminates employment with
a vested or partially vested benefit,
when a Plan converts its funding
method from individual policies to a
group contract or to a different funding
medium, when a Plan is amended to
cease death benefit coverage for
participants or for the class of
employees to which a particular
participant belongs, or when a Plan
terminates.
In these circumstances, where a Plan
will not continue the Policy in effect,
Plans have historically permitted the
insured participant, or other persons
with consent of the participant, to
purchase the policy. Sale of the policy
by a Plan to, or for the benefit of, a
participant allows the participant (or
other owner) to keep the policy death
benefit in effect while simultaneously
allowing the Plan to realize the policy
cash value. Maintaining the death
benefit in effect is particularly
advantageous where a participant, at the
time the policy would otherwise be
surrendered, is medically impaired so
that he or she is uninsurable or
insurable only at substantially higher
premium rates (to reflect the higher risk
of death) or where the policy contains
valuable options or features that cannot
3 See, for example, Treas. Reg. Section 1.401–
1(b)(1)(i); and Rev. Rul. 66–143, 1966–1 C.B. 79.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:13 May 09, 2002 Jkt 197001
be replicated for the same premium cost
in the current market. All of the above
circumstances, and the advantage to the
participants of allowing the Plan to sell
the policy to his or her designee in lieu
of surrender, were recognized by the
Department in granting PTE 77–8 and
PTE 92–6.
In many circumstances, the
participant will have created a Trust as
part of his or her estate plan to hold a
policy or policies on his or her life. The
Trust beneficiaries are typically the
participant’s spouse or children or both,
or other relatives. The Trust will
typically purchase insurance contracts
on the life of the participant, including
the policy from the Plan, if available,
with funds contributed by the
participant or by one or more of his
relatives. The Trust will almost always
be irrevocable (although a right to
amend and revoke may be given to a
person other than the insured who
created the Trust) and will commonly
provide for the participant’s spouse or
another relative, or an independent
person, to be the trustee of the Trust.
The governing instruments of Trusts
holding life insurance policies vary
markedly in format (depending on the
applicable state law, the types of
contracts held, the insured’s desired
disposition of the proceeds and other
Trust assets, the likely tax impact, and
the drafter’s style).
The principal reason a participant
will want someone other than himself or
herself to own a policy purchased from
a Plan is to conform to the federal estate
tax standards for excluding the proceeds
of the policy from the participant’s gross
estate. The aim is for the participant to
divest himself or herself of all
‘‘incidents of ownership,’’ or never to
have had in the first instance any
‘‘incidents of ownership,’’ in the
policy.4 In general, this estate tax result
can be achieved by having a policy
(including all its ‘‘incidents of
ownership’’) held by a relative of the
participant (as allowed under PTE 92–
6), as well as by a Trust. Accordingly,
use of a Trust is not necessary for a
participant to achieve this estate tax
exclusion. However, a participant may
prefer that a policy available from a Plan
be purchased by a Trust rather than by
an individual for a variety of non-tax
reasons related to his or her family
situation. Having the policy held by a
spouse or other relative may expose the
policy to undesirable consequences
related to probate if, for instance, the
owner should become incapacitated or
pre-decease the participant. Those
participants who are unsure of their
4 See, generally, section 2042 of the Code.
PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
31837
own or their relatives’ continued
capacity to act as owners and stewards
of the policy and its proceeds may
indeed prefer to have the policy held
within a Trust under the control of an
independent trustee. In addition,
ownership by a spouse or family
member subjects the participant’s
desired ultimate disposition of the
policy proceeds to risks associated with
changes in family relationships or
discord among family members. Also, a
policy owned by the participant or
relative may be exposed to claims of the
owner’s future creditors, which result
can often be avoided by having the
policy held in a properly structured
Trust. Finally, a Trust can embody a
carefully tailored, intricate dispositive
scheme that precisely carries out the
participant’s intentions. Simply
allowing the Plan to sell the policy to a
relative or other individual owner will
not always reflect what a participant
really wants to do.
Based upon the arguments presented
by the Applicant and the protections
already embodied in PTE 92–6, the
Department has determined to amend
PTE 92–6 to expand the scope of relief
for sales of life insurance policies by
Plans. Accordingly, effective February
12, 1992,5 the proposed amendment to
PTE 92–6 would expand the coverage of
the exemption to include the sale by a
Plan of an individual life insurance or
annuity contract to a Trust established
by or for the benefit of an individual
who is a participant in the Plan and the
insured under the policy, or by or for
the benefit of one or more relatives (as
defined in Section I(2) of PTE 92–6) of
the participant.
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2)
of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary,
or other party in interest or disqualified
person with respect to a plan, from
certain other provisions of ERISA and
the Code, including any prohibited
transaction provisions to which the
exemption does not apply and the
general fiduciary responsibility
provisions of section 404 of ERISA
which require, among other things, that
a fiduciary discharge his or her duties
respecting the plan solely in the
interests of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan; nor does it
affect the requirement of section 401(a)
of the Code that the plan must operate
5 i.e., the date of publication in the Federal
Register of PTE 92–6.
pfrm01 PsN: 10MYN1
 31838 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2002 / Notices
for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption, if granted, would
not extend to transactions prohibited
under section 406(b)(3) of the Act or
section 4975(c)(1)(F) of the Code;
(3) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of ERISA
and 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the
Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(4) If granted, the proposed
amendment is applicable to a particular
transaction only if the transaction
satisfies the conditions specified in the
exemption; and
(5) The proposed amendment, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of ERISA and the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction.
Written Comments and Hearing
Requests
The Department invites all interested
persons to submit written comments or
requests for a public hearing on the
proposed amendment to the address and
within the time period set forth above.
All comments received will be made a
part of the record. Comments and
requests for a hearing should state the
reasons for the writer’s interest in the
proposed exemption. Comments
received will be available for public
inspection at the above address.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Prohibited Transaction Exemption
92–6 includes a disclosure provision
that requires an insured participant to
be informed prior to the sale of an
applicable life insurance policy.
Although this disclosure requirement
constitutes a collection of information
as defined in the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, that collection of
information as currently approved
under OMB control number 1210–0063
is not substantially or materially altered
by the terms of this proposed
amendment. Accordingly, no
information collection request has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget in connection with this
Notice of Proposed Amendment to PTE
92–6.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 19:13 May 09, 2002 Jkt 197001
Proposed Amendment
Under section 408(a) of the Act and
section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55
FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990), the
Department proposes to amend PTE 92–
6 as set forth below:
I. Effective January 1, 1975, the
restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1)
and 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the taxes
imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of
the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code,
shall not apply to the sale of an
individual life insurance or annuity
contract by an employee benefit plan to:
(1) A participant under such plan; (2) a
relative of a participant under such
plan; (3) an employer any of whose
employees are covered by the plan; (4)
another employee benefit plan; or (5)
effective February 12, 1992, a trust
established by or for the benefit of one
or more of the persons described in (1)
or (2) above;, if:
(a) Such participant is the insured
under the contract;
(b) Such relative is a ‘‘relative’’ as
defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or
a ‘‘member of the family’’ as defined in
section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or is a
brother or sister of the insured (or a
spouse of such brother or sister), and
such relative or trust is the beneficiary
under the contract;
(c) The contract would, but for the
sale, be surrendered by the plan;
(d) With respect to sales of the policy
to the employer, a relative of the
insured, a trust, or another plan, the
participant insured under the policy is
first informed of the proposed sale and
is given the opportunity to purchase
such contract from the plan, and
delivers a written document to the plan
stating that he or she elects not to
purchase the policy and consents to the
sale by the plan of such policy to such
employer, relative, trust or other plan;
(e) The amount received by the plan
as consideration for the sale is at least
equal to the amount necessary to put the
plan in the same cash position as it
would have been had it retained the
contract, surrendered it, and made any
distribution owing to the participant on
his vested interest under the plan; and
(f) With regard to any plan which is
an employee welfare benefit plan, such
plan must not, with respect to such sale,
discriminate in form or in operation in
favor of plan participants who are
officers, shareholders or highly
compensated employees.
II. Effective October 22, 1986, the
exemption provided for transactions
described in part I is available for plan
PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM
participants who are owner-employees
(as defined in section 401(c)(3) of the
Code) or shareholder-employees as
defined in section 1379 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect on the
day before the date of enactment of the
Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982) if
the conditions set forth in part I are met.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of
May, 2002.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations,
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,
Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 02–11661 Filed 5–9–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4520–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration
[Application Number D–10845]
Proposed Amendment to Prohibited
Transaction Exemption 86–128 (PTE
86–128) for Securities Transactions
Involving Employee Benefit Plans and
Broker-Dealers
AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Amendment
to PTE 86–128.
SUMMARY: This document contains a
notice of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of
a proposed amendment to PTE 86–128.
PTE 86–128 is a class exemption that
permits certain persons who serve as
fiduciaries for employee benefit plans to
effect or execute securities transactions
on behalf of those plans, provided that
specified conditions are met. The
exemption also allows sponsors of
pooled separate accounts and other
pooled investment funds to use their
affiliates to effect or execute securities
transactions for such accounts when
certain conditions are met. Currently,
PTE 86–128 generally is not available to
any person (or any affiliate thereof) who
is a trustee [other than a
nondiscretionary trustee], plan
administrator or an employer, any of
whose employees are covered by the
plan. The proposed amendment, if
adopted, would allow a fiduciary that is
a plan trustee to engage in a transaction
covered by PTE 86–128. The proposed
amendment would affect participants
and beneficiaries of employee benefit
plans, fiduciaries with respect to such
plans, and other persons engaging in the
described transactions.
DATES: If adopted, the proposed
amendment will be effective as of the
date the granted amendment is
pfrm01 PsN: 10MYN1